Life spans rise, but so do ‘sick years’

By Matthew Heimer

Baby boomers and their financial advisers can tie themselves in knots trying to plan financially for medical costs in retirement – accumulating some extra nest-egg padding to handle out-of-pocket costs, for example, or buying long-term care insurance. But data published as part of a recent study of longevity and health shows why those seemingly morbid calculations are essential. According to the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (GBD 2010), a major data-gathering project led by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, the average American can expect to spend a little over 10 years of his or her life in less-than-good health, with much of that time concentrated in the retirement years.

Bloomberg News/Landov

Will you spend 10 years with these folks?

The GBD 2010 project, which is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, first announced some of its findings last December, and additional information has been trickling out as researchers continue to sift the data. The findings have offered a mixed bag where U.S. health outcomes are concerned. Between 1990 and 2010, for example, the average American gained three years of life expectancy, reaching 78.2. But the project estimates that only 67.9 years of today’s hypothetical American life would be spent in good health. (By each measure, the U.S. finishes 12th in a field of 15 comparably wealthy nations.)

Those numbers don’t mean that the average American spends 10.3 years as an invalid—the health-metrics institute explains that its measurements of unhealthy years incorporate everything from chronic but manageable diseases like epilepsy to a bad bout of the flu, with each weighted according to relative severity. But the health factors that contribute most to those sick years – including heart disease, musculoskeletal disorders and chronic respiratory disease –tend to take a greater toll on people over 55.

While women continue to live longer than men (with a life expectancy of 80.5 years in 2010, versus 75.9 for men), their life expectancy rose more slowly over the preceding 20 years, with women gaining only 2.7 years, while men gained 4.6. Researchers aren’t sure what explains the disparity in growth rates: Ali Mokdad, the leader of GBD 2010, tells the National Geographic this month that women are less likely to get adequate treatment for high blood pressure and high cholesterol, which may be a factor. (The National Geographic’s online story includes a map that shows differences in life expectancy between men and women by U.S. county.)

Moreover, by virtue of living longer, women on average have more unhealthy years than men – 11 years for women versus 9.7 for men. Actuarial concerns like this help explain why some long-term care insurers are now breaking with past practice and charging women more for coverage.

Story Conversation

About Encore

Encore looks at the changing nature of retirement, from new rules and guidelines for financial security to the shifting identities, needs and priorities of people saving for and living in retirement. Our lead blogger is editor Matthew Heimer, and frequent contributors include editor Amy Hoak, writer Catey Hill, and MarketWatch columnists Elizabeth O’Brien, Robert Powell and Andrea Coombes. Encore also features regular commentary from The Wall Street Journal retirement columnists Glenn Ruffenach and Anne Tergesen and the Director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, Alicia H. Munnell.